Research motion had been rejected: Striking questions from CHP's Bağcıoğlu regarding the İskenderun martyrs

CHP Deputy Chairman Yankı Bağcıoğlu stated that their request to establish a research commission in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) following the incident at the İskenderun Naval Recruit Training Regiment, which resulted in the deaths of two privates, was rejected. Bağcıoğlu emphasized that the incident must be examined in all its aspects.

Bağcıoğlu stated, "If we had an effective military health system, perhaps these kinds of painful events would not have occurred," expressing that lessons should be learned from past mistakes and the military justice system should be reorganized. He also stated that the incident must be investigated transparently in a way that eases the public conscience.

CHP's Bağcıoğlu listed important questions that need to be answered regarding the incident. In addition to questions such as why the privates were kept waiting under the sun for a long time, who gave this order, and who implemented it, he also drew attention to issues such as whether the unit commander foresaw potential health risks. He also said that allegations of insufficient drinking water within the unit should be investigated.

Bağcıoğlu stated that there are important questions that must be answered during the investigation process to ease the public conscience, and listed these questions as follows:

''Why were the privates kept waiting under the sun for a long time? Is it true that the entire company was kept waiting for a long time because there were AWOL privates?

Who gave the order for the privates to be kept waiting under the sun for a long time, contrary to directives and administrative orders? Who implemented this order contrary to directives and administrative orders?

Including those who did not give the order; did all the chain of command, and even all the ranked personnel, not notice that the privates were being kept waiting under the sun for a long time? If they did, did they react?

Did the Unit Commander not foresee the health problems that could be caused by the privates staying under the sun for a long time? Does this situation not show a weakness in command and management?

Do the doctors at the Primary Care Health Center monitor adverse meteorological conditions and warn the Unit Commander about the potential effects on personnel?

Is it true that 'drinking water' is insufficient in the unit and that soldiers are forced to buy water from the canteen with money?

If this is true, why were corrective measures not taken from a logistical perspective by the chain of command, including the Naval Forces Command?

Who performed the first medical intervention at the Regiment Command?

What is the 'intervention location - time - event schedule' of the emergency medical intervention performed on the ill privates? Was the 'emergency medical intervention' performed evaluated within the framework of the standards that must be provided in force?

Does the occurrence of these sad and negative results, which are not even experienced in units of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) serving in much more difficult geographical and operational conditions, in a military unit in the center of the city reveal a comprehensive command weakness?''